Good and evil, as basic terms for describing people, their actions, and circumstances, defy easy definition. Leading expert on the psychology of positive and negative forms of action, Irvin Staub, defines evil as "intensely harmful actions, which are not commensurate with instigating conditions, and the persistence or repetition of such acts. A serious of actions also can be evil when any one act causes limited harm, but with repetition, these cause great harm" (Staub, 1999b, p. 180). This definition leaves many things to question like what instigating conditions make evil admissable? Do things have to be persistent or repetitive? Staub states that the social-psychological perspective finds it best to interpret on the basis of action. Actions are evil; thoughts are up for interpretation.

Staub also takes a stab at defining goodness. Like Arthur Miller (2004), who equates the good with prosocial action, Staub simply says that good actions benefit others; "it is an extreme form of helping other" (Staub, p.52). Good remains a fuzzy definition as well. A good action can be done with a bad motivation. Does goodness work like evil in the way that action should be the only consideration and not motivation?

Miller, recognizing the complexity of the issue, raises two questions at the heart of determining an act good or evil:

1. Are people behaving in the best interests of others and of themselves?
2. Are they harming others and possibly themselves as well? (Miller, p.2)

These questions about 1-the motive behind an action and 2- the consequences of those actions. Further, how do these questions relate to whether or not a person/group is evil? Miller says that it is easier to place such a description on groups or organizations. However, frequently people suffer from the fundamental attribution error (FAE). The FAE simply describes the error of attributing behavior based on personal or dispositional factors. This applies to the meaning of good and evil by observers labeling people who do good as good people and people who do evil are evil. This obviously has a strong effect on determining who and what is good and evil.

Evil and good are also, at least in part, "in the eye of the beholder." One person's evil can be another person's good. Baumeister's studies of the difference in perspectives of perpetrators and victims illustrate the systematic biases the result from being the doer, and the recipient, of negative behaviors. Other perspectives to consider include cross-cultural differences, differences across eras (historical differences), and individual differences.

Unresolved issues include

• Why is there no clear opposite to the word "evil?"
• Is “evil” the right word for an objective scientist to use? Does evil have religious connotations?
• How do people use the word "evil" in everyday conversation? Don't they sometimes use it to describe despicable acts, but also in a more cavalier fashion?
• Are people evil, or are situations evil? Does a person become evil if caught up, involuntarily, in an "evil" situation?
• What about thoughts? Can thoughts be "evil"? Is a person who has evil thoughts also evil?
• Is evil something that is reserved for long-term, unrelenting, processes?
• A person or an organization that does one bad thing may not be evil, but if the negative actions are long-term ones then the work evil seems more appropriate.
• If a person does something bad, are they permanently corrupted? Are small "evils" "gateway" behaviors that lead the individual down a darker path? Does confession prevent individuals from become corrupted by their small evils?

Sources:
Four Roots of Evil, Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs. In A. Miller (2004), The social psychology of good and evil.
Topics